Articles Posted in Bronx

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. Jose and Nerieda Rodriguez as the administrators of the estate of the deceased Janette Carlucci and Candice Carlucci are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendant in the case is Iren Sepe. A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff have motioned for a declaration stating that they are entitled to 100% of the shares of stock of the Very Best IRTJ Corporation that is owned by Robert Sepe. The defendant’s have made a cross motion seeking a declaration that she has a superior right to half of the proceeds of the sale of the stock of the Very Best IRTJ Corporation.

Case Background

The defendant, Irene Sepe and her ex-husband Robert Sepe were divorced on the 16th of July, 2007. A stipulation of settlement was entered as part of the divorce. In this settlement Robert Sepe acknowledged that he was the sole owner of The Very Best IRTJ Corporation. The principal asset of the company is a commercial building that is located on Yorktown Road in Croton-on-Hudson. A New York Custody Lawyer said the stipulation of the divorce settlement states:

Continue reading

This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Trial Term located in New York County. The plaintiff in the case is Edward Hendel. The defendant in the case is Arline Hendel. The plaintiff husband is seeking a divorce on the ground that he and the defendant wife have lived separately for more than two years as stated in the separation agreement. He further states that he has met all of the conditions and terms of the separation judgment.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the couple was married in New York, New York on the 11th of June, 1950. They have two sons together who are fourteen and eleven years old. The defendant wife as a plaintiff in a Westchester County action was awarded a separation judgment on the tenth of February, 1966. This judgment was appealed and affirmed in appellate court.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard in the Supreme Court of New York County, the Special, and Trial Term. In this case, the plaintiff, Helena A. Wood is suing the defendant, Walter A. Wood, for a decree of separation. A New York Family Lawyer said the defendant has entered a counterclaim against the plaintiff for an annulment of the marriage or separation if the annulment is not granted. The plaintiff’s argument for separation is dependent on the marriage being valid.

Case Background

The couple was first married in 1959 in France. They were married again the following year in New York. The husband states that neither of these marriages is valid because the wife was previously married in Chihuahua Mexico and the divorce in Mexico was not valid.

Continue reading

This is a case being heard in the Court of Appeals in the State of New York. The appellant in this case is Ellen Corcoran, who is the executrix of the estate of John J. O’Connell, deceased. The respondent in this case is Maureen O’Connell.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the respondent, Maureen O’Connell was married to the appellant, the deceased John J. O’Connell in 1959. The couple had eight children during their marriage. Each of the children are now emancipated. The plaintiff moved out of the marital residence in 1982 and began a divorce proceeding in New York. This divorce procedure was based on inhuman and cruel treatment.

Continue reading

This is a divorce proceeding being held in front of the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Westchester County. The defendant in the matter is Thomas Hannigan and the plaintiff in the case is Barbara Hannigan.

Case Background

A New York Family Lawyer said the plaintiff and the defendant are respectively 44 and 43 years old and have three children together. The children are 18, 13, and 11 years old. The couple was married on the fifteenth of June, 1985. The plaintiffs have begun this matrimonial action on the 20th of June, 2005. The main issue in this dispute is how the marital property of the couple is going to be distributed. The marital property includes a substantial amount of real property that they own as tenants by the entirety, the money that is located in a bank account that is only in the name of the plaintiff, and the value of the business owned by the defendant and the value of the plaintiff’s nursing degree and nursing license.

Continue reading

The Facts of the Case:

On or about 8 June 2009, the Family Court of Bronx County issued an order which, among others, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent father’s parental rights to the subject child and committed his custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption. A New York Family Lawyer said in appeal to the said decision followed.

The Issues of the Case:

Continue reading

In a proceeding to determine child custody pursuant to Family Court Act, in which the mother cross-petitioned for modification of an order of the Bronx County Family Court, granting the father child custody of his daughter, the father appeals from a dispositional order of the Nassau County Family Court, which, after a hearing, granted permanent child custody of the couple’s two children to the mother.

A New York Family Lawyer said by petition, the father, a resident of Nassau County, requested legal custody of his son who was born in 1987. In his petition, he asserted that he had been left with physical custody of his son since March 5, 1988, when his wife moved to Bronx by herself. However, the evidence adduced at the subsequent hearing reveals that the mother took her son with her when she left.

In her cross petition, the mother confirmed that until March 1988 she resided with her husband along with their son and their daughter, who was born in 1982. She alleged that she left his husband’s residence in March and that he refused to allow her to take their daughter with her. She requested modification of a prior order of the Bronx County Family Court, pursuant to which custody of her daughter had been awarded to his husband, and further requested permanent custody of her daughter.

Continue reading

In this case,a New York Family Lawyer said the Defendant moved for an order: (1) modifying the Judgment of Divorce to remove any reference to the Plaintiff’s Child as his child; (2) removing any and all obligations of defendant to pay child support for Plaintiff’s Child; (3) directing the Office of Child Support Enforcement to stop any action to enforce payment of child support arrears of the defendant for Plaintiff’s Child; (4) requiring Plaintiff to repay all past child support payments made by defendant; and (5) requiring Plaintiff to pay attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements for this action.

Based on the records of the case, plaintiff and defendant were married on April 15, 2002 but only began to live together in February 2003. The Child was born on November 15, 2002. On June 2, 2003, the Family Court ordered defendant to pay $ 44 per week for child support. The Plaintiff commenced a divorce action on January 26, 2004 based on cruel and inhuman treatment. By judgment dated August 30, 2004, the Supreme Court granted the Plaintiff a divorce on defendant’s default, and incorporated the terms of the Family Court child support order.

Thereafter, a New York Custody Lawyer said the defendant filed a summons and petition for visitation in Family Court. As the visitation case was proceeding, defendant began to question whether he was the biological father of the Child. On February 10, 2005, defendant took the Child for a DNA test, which excluded the defendant as the biological father of the Child. Since February 2005, neither defendant not his family has had any communication with the Child.

Continue reading

The petitioner seeks visitation with the subject child, the biological child of the respondent. The petitioner and respondent married sometime after the child’s birth. A New York Family Lawyer said the child was born on November 17, 1997 and nearly two years later the petitioner executed an acknowledgment of paternity and had his name added to the child’s birth certificate. For several years the couple held him out to be her biological father even though they knew he was not. The petitioner and respondent began having marital problems and the child’s biological father, at some point apparently came back into the respondent’s life. A Bronx Child Custody Lawyer said that, the child’s biological father seeks an order of filiation and the respondent seeks to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity, claiming her signature on it was forged. The biological father and the mother filed their respective petitions simultaneously. In addition, the respondent is pursuing a family offense proceeding against her estranged husband alleging that he verbally harassed her over the phone. A criminal case based on allegations made by the mother against her estranged husband is also pending before this court.

A New York Custody Lawyer said that, a hearing was commenced with respect to the respondent mother’s petition to vacate the acknowledgment of paternity on the grounds of fraud. During the hearing, however, and after the biological father filed his paternity petition, the parties conceded that he is the subject child’s biological father. Independent DNA testing of the biological father confirmed his paternity. This evidence obviates the need for the court to continue taking testimony with respect to the allegations of fraud because Family Court Act § 516-a (b), the statute governing acknowledgments of paternity, specifically states that the court “shall” vacate an acknowledgment if it finds the alleged father, here, the biological father, is in fact not the biological father. To ask the court to continue hearing testimony on the allegations of fraud — as the petitioner and the law guardian do in their briefs — is in contravention of the plain language of Family Court Act § 516-a (b). It is also asking this court to ignore indisputable scientific evidence and the parties’ own admissions. The Court said that acknowledgment of paternity is vacated and that the biological father herein will be issued an order of filiation.

The issue in this case is whether the petitioner, as a biological stranger, has standing to maintain his visitation petition.